Abstract
There is some evidence that an increase in the regional manufacturing disparity in India is associated with regional (panel data specific) embodiment hypothesis. The purpose of the present article is to provide different interpretations of such association. It endeavours to illustrate that the neoclassical perspective is best suited for universal applications (and long-run tendency towards global regional convergence), and the tweaking of such principles—to generate conditional convergence theories, just to explain persistence regional disparity—fails to convince. In this present context, the present article adopts an augmented Keynesian–Youngian thesis wherein the embodiment hypothesis not only explains the intrinsic possibility of the disparity but also makes clear why the so-called conditional variables (emphasised otherwise by the neoclassical attempts) differ regionally.JEL Codes: O11, O15, O47, R11, D29
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
